Re: Constructing a Matrix A

Let be any matrix satisfying that condition. You can perform certain elementary row operations on without changing its determinant. Suppose the rows of are . Let be a composition of elementary row operations so that . The operation that adds a multiple of one row to another doesn't change the determinant. So, the determinant of is the determinant of .

Re: Constructing a Matrix A

Originally Posted by SlipEternal

Let be any matrix satisfying that condition. You can perform certain elementary row operations on without changing its determinant. Suppose the rows of are . Let be a composition of elementary row operations so that . The operation that adds a multiple of one row to another doesn't change the determinant. So, the determinant of is the determinant of .

I am not sure I understand what is doing? But don't I need to construct A?

The transformation should be linear. Otherwise a specific system S, or a point in space or time would be distinct. (For a linear transformation, the inverse has the same form.)

Such considerations in physics, of the form "This function is nonnegative, so it must be x²", amaze me. They seem to be so contrary to how mathematics is done. However, they do help find a reasonable answer. In this problem, there is only one number that is distinguished in some sense with respect to matrices and determinants. You would not expect that the determinant of some arbitrary matrix is, say, 5, would you?[/rant]

Edit: Another way to solve the problem is to note that the property of A from post #1 implies that its rows are linearly dependent.

Re: Constructing a Matrix A

Originally Posted by emakarov

Such considerations in physics, of the form "This function is nonnegative, so it must be x²", amaze me. They seem to be so contrary to how mathematics is done. However, they do help find a reasonable answer. In this problem, there is only one number that is distinguished in some sense with respect to matrices and determinants. You would not expect that the determinant of some arbitrary matrix is, say, 5, would you?[/rant]

I have forgotten who all were involved, but there was a bit of angst between Physics and Mathematics in the mid 19th century. Many Mathematicians were disgruntled about the use Mathematics by Physicists because they thought the Math was too "beautiful" (I supplied the word here) for something "real." I think the funniest one was about non-commutative Mathematics. Who could possibly use that in a Physical theory? Then Heisenberg came along.... (I suspect that non-Riemannian geometry fell into that category as well.)